Fox News Admits ObamaCare Will Reduce the Deficit

Yes – Fox News actually just admitted that Obamacare would reduce the deficit.  Republicans have continually repeated the lie that Obamacare increases the deficit; it doesn’t.”

From Fox News’ September 6 2012 Democratic National Convention coverage:

Full video HERE.

This chart shows both the increase in revenues and costs and the line in the middle shows the impact on the deficit by year. If the line is below zero then it reduces the deficit and if the line is above zero – it increases the deficit. You can see…the estimate is that it reduces the deficit: Source

ACA obamacare CBO10yeargraph-thumb-454x327-18160

The new estimates reflect a couple of factors. The Congressional Budget Office lists them:

- An increase of $168 billion in projected outlays for Medicaid and CHIP;
- A decrease of $97 billion in projected costs for exchange subsidies and related spending;
- A decrease of $20 billion in the cost of tax credits for small employers; and
- An additional $99 billion in net deficit reductions from penalty payments, the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other effects on tax revenues and outlays—with most of those effects reflecting changes in revenues.

Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic digs into the details and rebuts those Republicans who INCORRECTLY say Obamacare now costs double:

To figure out the cost of health care reform, CBO looks at each of the law’s component parts and, for accounting purposes, groups them into different categories. It calls one category “gross cost of coverage expansions” – that’s the amount of money the federal government will spend to help people get insurance, mostly by offering Medicaid to more people or giving people subsidies they can use to help offset the cost of private insurance. Last year, CBO estimated that the gross cost of coverage expansion from 2012 through 2021 would be $1.445 trillion. Now CBO thinks the gross cost will be $1.496 trillion. The number shifted, in part, because the CBO has changed its projections for economic growth. (MSNBC’s Tom Curry has a nice explanation of this.) But, in the context of such a large a budget projection, that’s barely any difference at all.

Watch Sicko (2007) online for FREE!

, , , ,

  1. #1 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 4:53 pm

    Your source is Classwarfareexists.com? Really? Tell me this is a satire piece on yourself.

    Your chart is also a nifty trick. Since the “benefits” to the law don’t start until 2014, all those tax revenues in 2011, 2012 and 2013 without benefits sure sound good, don’t they? I wish I could take credit for revenues without any expenses and declare that I reduced the deficit. Neat trick.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the CBO says 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsorded insurance due to ACA.

    My friend the social worker just had her hours cut to 29 hours and she tells me all family welfare agencies are doing the same.

    The Beige Book faults ACA with slow hiring.

    Congratufuckiglations.

  2. #2 by Cliff Lyon on September 25, 2013 - 5:03 pm

    Besides the CBO estimate, even Fox news admitted Obamacare reduces the deficit.

    You seem troubled by this good news Brewski.

    Is your little paradigm falling apart?

    • #3 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 5:18 pm

      Troubled by what? Troubled by 7 million people losing their employer sponsored insurance? Troubled by social workers’ hours being cut? Or troubled by our government penalizing organizations from hiring? Yes on all three.

  3. #4 by cav on September 25, 2013 - 5:56 pm

    On the other hand…if Faux News reports ObamaCare will reduce the deficit, well, of course, I’m skeptical. It would be wrong not to be.

    • #5 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 6:09 pm

      I am waiting for Cliff to provide the CBO source.

      Either way, it does not change the 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefit trick.

      It also does not change the fake lower payment rates to providers which have been and will be increased in other bills. The phantom “savings” are included in the ACA figures even though they have been taken out elsewhere.

      Cliff can fool some people, but not me. Nice try Cliff.

      • #6 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 9:04 pm

        The CBO confirms what I just said:

        “By generally
        following current law, the baselines incorporate the
        assumption that some policy changes that lawmakers
        have routinely made in the past—such as preventing the
        sharp cuts to Medicare’s payment rates for physicians
        called for by law—will not be made again.”

        Ooops Cliff. Nice try.

    • #8 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 6:29 pm

      TRy again. You must have linked the wrong report. This one is from HHS and not CBO and this one is about rates and not deficits. You are 0 – 2.

  4. #9 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 9:01 pm

    This is what the CBO says about the current state of affairs:

    “The unsustainable nature of the federal government’s current
    tax and spending policies presents lawmakers and the
    public with difficult choices. Unless substantial changes
    are made to the major health care programs and Social
    Security, those programs will absorb a much larger share
    of the economy’s total output in the future than they have
    in the past. Even with spending for all other federal activities
    on track, by the end of this decade, to represent the
    smallest share of GDP in more than 70 years, total federal
    noninterest spending would be larger relative to the size
    of the economy than it has been, on average, over the past
    40 years.”

  5. #10 by brewski on September 25, 2013 - 9:07 pm

    And what the CBO says about our future under the Cliff/Richard/Glenden policies:

    “Large federal budget deficits over the long term would
    reduce investment, resulting in lower national income
    and higher interest rates than would otherwise occur. The
    reason is that increased government borrowing would
    cause a larger share of the savings potentially available for
    investment to be used for purchasing government securities,
    such as Treasury bonds. Those purchases would
    “crowd out” investment in capital goods, such as factories
    and computers, which make workers more productive.”

    • #11 by cav on September 26, 2013 - 8:45 am

      Inflating the ‘Plebe’ bubble is itself a very real element in any ‘shortfall’ our ‘entitlement’ programs will be experiencing.

      Every person who has been made to feel he or she has not accumulated the requisite $1,000,000 for their retirement -who then stays on the job; every young person who is unlikely for numerous reasons to even find a ‘good’ job, hammering away at Unions, belittling almost every kind or worker, will all have the effect of further burdening the account.

      This is as it should be – ‘the rich’.

  6. #12 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 25, 2013 - 11:22 pm

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/marketplace_premiums_ib_final.pdf

    weighted national average price for a plan is coming in around 17% lower then first projected, Obamacare won’t cost as much as projected.

    • #13 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2013 - 9:04 am

      Don’t fall for the spin. Premiums are outrageous, especially when you factor in the deductibles.

      ACA: ‘Cheaper Than Expected’ Not The Same As Cheaper

      • #14 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 26, 2013 - 2:30 pm

        http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet-rev1-8-6.pdf

        We still don’t have any information on what is in the avenue h exchange, and the information on the federal exchange is still to little.

        However if they are anything like the CA plans, then I don’t think we have anything to worry about.

        • #15 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2013 - 2:57 pm

          I won’t be affected by the individual private for-profit insurance mandate unless I lose my job, so I’m not worried for myself.

          What about the people who will be forced to pay for nearly worthless high-deductible health insurance policies? According to your link, the deductible for most individuals in California will be $6,350.

          • #16 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 26, 2013 - 3:11 pm

            out of pocket costs and the deductible are 2 different things.

          • #17 by brewski on September 26, 2013 - 3:26 pm

            Unless you are one of the 7 million who will lose their employer-sponsored insurance.

            Actually, Stanford did their own estimate (both the CBO and Stanford are forecasts so no one really knows) and they came up with a number of 37 million people who will lose their employer-sponsored insurance. They figure that over time lots and lots of employers (including non-profits, local governments, etc.) will push their full time employees on the exchanges. Get the monkey off their back of managing a health care plan where it is not really their core competency of they are a shoe company, or a social agency.

            So in effect there will be no employer mandate at all and they will just pay the “tax” and everyone will have to buy from the exchanges. The whole thing will turn into a voucher looking program with the subsidies. So in the end it might end up looking like something a market-based conservative might suggest. Guaranteed coverage, no employer involvement, freedom of the individual to choose their own plans, subsidies paid for by what is in effect a payroll tax.

          • #18 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2013 - 3:50 pm

            An out-of-pocket expense is a nonreimbursable expense paid by a patient.

            A deductible is a fixed amount of money you have to pay before most, if not all, of the policy’s benefits can be enjoyed. A deductible is also considered an out-of-pocket expense.

          • #19 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 26, 2013 - 4:14 pm

            The $6,350 figure is the out of pocket cap, not a deductible.

          • #20 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2013 - 4:26 pm

            Ronald–

            You are correct. The deductible can be as high as $2,000+ for an individual, and the combination of deductible, coinsurance and copay expenses can be up to $6,350.

            That’s still what I call a worthless health insurance plan for most people. And I just spent some time searching to find out if the maximum deductible, which is indexed to inflation, has gone up for 2014 – so far, no luck.

          • #21 by Ronald D. Hunt on September 26, 2013 - 4:57 pm

            We don’t know what the deductibles are yet, not until Oct 1. bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans are not high deductible plans( defined as 1,125 through 2,250 in Obama care).

            If their is a deductible it will only apply to hospital stays and surgical care. Their is no deductible listed for any of the CA plans, mind you they setup their own exchange system, something Utah hasn’t.

            Either way we don’t have the actual numbers yet, again Oct 1 for that.

            I simply am not going to jump up and down fearing myself over speculation.

            Their is far to much nonsense out their on Obamacare, your FDL links certainly included in that category; to really take anything at its word yet.

            I want to see the actual plan as listed on the buy page of the exchange first.

  7. #22 by brewski on September 26, 2013 - 6:48 am

    In lefty-land “lower than expectations” is just like “budget cuts” which are actually increases.

  8. #23 by brewski on September 26, 2013 - 7:11 am

    Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

    Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

  9. #24 by Richard Warnick on September 26, 2013 - 3:53 pm

    brewski, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

    So in the end it might end up looking like something a market-based conservative might suggest.

    Who do you suppose invented the individual private for-profit health insurance mandate? It was the Heritage Foundation.

  10. #25 by brewski on September 26, 2013 - 7:25 pm

    Going back and listening to that video that Cliff linked, it is amazing how Cliff is either really stupid or really dishonest. The video does not say what Cliff says it says. I’ve lost how may different ways Cliff has been smacked down just on one post.

  11. #26 by brewski on February 4, 2014 - 1:02 pm

    “the deficit will mushroom to more than $1 trillion by 2022. The increase is almost entirely due to the cost of Social Security benefits, health care programs, and interest payments on the national debt”

    http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/04/obamacare-cbo-deficits-congress-budget/

  12. #32 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 10:21 am

    Yes, Obamacare is a disaster:

    “the deficit will mushroom to more than $1 trillion by 2022. The increase is almost entirely due to the cost of Social Security benefits, health care programs, and interest payments on the national debt”

    http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/04/obamacare-cbo-deficits-congress-budget/

    • #38 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 8:00 pm

      Paper tiger.

  13. #39 by brewski on February 5, 2014 - 10:06 pm

    The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damning assessment Wednesday of the Affordable Care Act, telling lawmakers that ObamaCare creates a “disincentive for people to work,”

    • #40 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 9:22 am

      Or you could say that some employees are no longer forced to cling desperately to a lousy job they only need for the health insurance.

      • #41 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 9:44 am

        You could say that, but that is not what the CBO actually said. That is just what immoral political hacks said. If you read the actual report by the actual CBO they said something very very different from your immoral spin.

      • #42 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 10:09 am

        What the CBO actually said:

        “some provisions will raise effective
        tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the
        amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In
        particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some people will be phased out as their income rises—creating an implicit tax on additional earnings—whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during the next few years.’

        That doesn’t sound like liberating to me.

        The left wing propaganda is the opposite of the Truth.

  14. #43 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 8:24 am

    “More than four and a half years after the end of the recession, employment has risen sluggishly—much more slowly than it grew, on average, during the four previous recoveries that lasted more than one year. At the same time, the unemployment rate has fallen only partway back to its prerecession level, and a significant part of that improvement is attributable to a decline in labor force participation that has occurred as an unusually large number of people have stopped looking for work.

    an exceptionally large number of people have been unemployed for long periods, and the stigma attached to their long-term unemployment, along with a possible erosion of their job skills, has made it difficult for them to find new work.

    Employment at the end of 2013 was about 6 million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its prerecession level and if the participation rate had risen to the level it would have attained without the current cyclical weakness.”

    CBO

    • #44 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 9:25 am

      Shorter CBO: “Of course it hurts. You are being screwed by an elephant.” ;-)

      • #45 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 9:45 am

        You’re calling Obama an elephant? That’s racist.

        • #46 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 11:50 am

          President Obama has at least tried to help the economy, however more often he’s too willing to stand aside and let the GOP wrecking crew have at it.

          • #47 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 1:44 pm

            No he hasn’t. He’d had his boot on the neck of the economy since he was elected.

          • #48 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 3:59 pm

            Yeah, because everybody knows the key to a successful administration is to crash the economy… NOT.

            Why do right-wingers always indignantly accuse Dems of the exact thing the GOP is actually doing, even if it makes no sense?

          • #49 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 8:15 pm

            Thank you for conceding he has his boot on the neck of the economy .

  15. #50 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 4:12 pm

    This is what is actually going on, for those who somehow missed who is responsible for the bad economy:

    Unemployment Insurance Extension Fails Again In Senate

    WASHINGTON — Democrats failed on Thursday to win enough Republican votes to reauthorize long-term unemployment benefits for more than a million workers cut off in December.

    • #51 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 8:18 pm

      he’s been president for 5 years and all he does is play golf.

      http://obamagolfcounter.com

    • #52 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 7:29 am

      While the Republicans engage in nonstop economic sabotage.

      • #53 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 11:13 am

        Obamacare is economic sabotage.

        Just ask all my friends whose hours have just been cut back to 29 hours. Their employers who are doing this are not mean for profit businesses. Their employers include non-profit charities, school districts, universities, etc. Their lives have been destroyed by Obama’s economic sabotage .

        • #54 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 12:32 pm

          The Republicans are free to propose an alternative health care reform. But they can’t, because the ACA already is the Republican alternative.

          • #55 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 12:55 pm

          • #56 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 1:10 pm

            The Republican alternative, if you can call it that, only came out last month. The proposal is four years late and lacks detail, but from what we can see it’s an even bigger gift to the insurance industry than the ACA, and it cuts Medicaid.

          • #57 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:21 pm

            2007 is just last month?

            2009 is just last month?

            Intellectual weakness of the left.

          • #58 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:22 pm

            Just to be clear, there is still no Republican health care alternative that’s worthy of being called viable.

          • #59 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:26 pm

            Just to be clear, what was passed is not worthy of being called viable.

            Intellectual weakness of the left.

          • #60 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:49 pm

            I agree with you except the “left” part. The ACA was invented by the Heritage Foundation, Willard (“Mitt”) Romney, and lobbyists.

            The “left,” as you call it, is scarcely represented at all in Washington although we’re a majority of Americans.

          • #61 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 6:55 pm

            Who passed it and who voted for it?

            The left.

          • #62 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 9:12 pm

            If that statement was true we would have single-payer Medicare For All.

            As I said, progressives (the majority of Americans) have almost no representation in Washington.

          • #63 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 8:11 am

            The new high for self-identified liberals is 23 percent.

            http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/10/gallup-number-of-self-identified-liberals-reached-new-high-in-2013/

            Your math is wrong.

      • #64 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 10:53 pm

        Republican economic sabotage.

        Government Layoffs Have Been Undermining The Recovery For Five Years

        [T]he government shutdown and sequestration cuts knocked a quarter off of overall economic growth for 2013. The unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower without the roughly $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction policy enacted since conservatives swept into a House majority in the 2010 elections.

        • #65 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 8:09 am

          Thinkregress said so, it must be true.

          • #66 by Richard Warnick on February 8, 2014 - 11:04 am

            Do you have a different set of facts sourced to right-wing alternate reality?

          • #67 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 5:47 pm

            I give you facts all the time and all you do is ignore them and bleat “Faux News” even when my source is the CBO.

          • #68 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 9:51 pm

            You haven’t given me any “set of facts” so how could I give you a “different set of facts”? Different from what? Air?

  16. #69 by cav on February 9, 2014 - 8:54 am

    While brewski’s attachment to some mythical ‘dim left’ is unquestionable, so too is mine of the intransigent, mean, greedy,and one mustn’t leave out pridefully stupid, ‘right’ (wrong).

    “A new study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a research group based in Washington, suggested that the cost of last year’s fiscal standoffs lopped roughly a percentage point, or $150 billion, off economic output and cost 750,000 jobs.”

    They in effect increased the debt… under the banner of reducing debt
    .
    Mission accomplished!

    • #70 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2014 - 10:10 am

      I suppose we have to allow for the possibility of sheer incompetence, however I’m sticking with Republican economic sabotage. It works for them politically. They tank the economy on purpose, then at election time complain piteously about the “Obama economy.”

      • #71 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 1:04 pm

        ” however I’m sticking with Republican economic sabotage”

        Ah, so it is just your feelings.

        • #72 by Richard Warnick on February 9, 2014 - 6:20 pm

          Republican deliberate sabotage fits the available evidence better than incompetence.

          • #73 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 8:22 pm

            Feelings
            Nothing more than feelings,
            Trying to forget my feelings of love

            Teardrops,
            Rolling down on, my face
            Trying to forget my, feelings of love

            Feelings,
            For all my life I’ll feel it
            I’ll wish I’ve never met you, girl
            You’ll never come again

            Feelings,
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Wo-o-o feelings
            Again in my heart

    • #74 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 1:03 pm

      “They in effect increased the debt”

      How?

    • #75 by brewski on February 9, 2014 - 1:05 pm

      The right is no more mean or greedy than the left.

      When Obama puts his kids in DC public schools, then you will have a moral leg to stand on. Until then, you don’t .

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: